Tag: patents

US Patent and Trademark Office Hammers Innovators It’s Supposed to Help

“America must once again be a country where innovators are rewarded with a green light, not strangled with red tape,” President Donald J. Trump told the Winning the AI Race forum last July. If Trump wants to see strangulation up close, he should visit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

As if it were run by the Wicked Witch of the West, USPTO subjects pioneering inventors to a parade of unpleasant surprises. So far, no inventors report being chased by evil, flying monkeys. But tomorrow is another day.

If an airborne chimpanzee landed on Gilbert P. Hyatt’s desk and torched his files, Hyatt probably would roll his eyes and ask, “What took you so long?”

USPTO has battled the Sin City-based inventor for nearly 30 years. It has forced him through hoops, entombed him in paperwork, and even issued a jaw-dropping No New Patents for Hyatt order that sounds like hyperbole but is confirmed by federal courtroom testimony.

“The Patent Office is prejudiced against independent inventors and against pioneering inventions,” Hyatt told me over lunch, near the legendary Las Vegas Strip. “They used every trick in the book, to try and get rid of me, to delay, and to hope that I would die and then go away.” Hyatt, 87, has denied USPTO that easy victory. “I’m still here today. My patent applications are still alive.”

USPTO previously treated Hyatt fairly. From 1971 through 1997, it issued him 75 patents. His licensed patents have spawned such products as the first Canon and Nikon digital cameras, Panasonic TV sets, Sharp’s calculators and liquid-crystal displays, and Sony’s PlayStation. Hyatt’s signature achievement is U.S. Patent No. 4,942,516, for the computer microprocessor, which fuels the Digital Age.

Keep reading

Commerce Department Threatens to Take Ownership of Harvard Patents

The federal government is looking into Harvard University’s patent rights, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an Aug. 8 letter to Harvard President Alan Garber.

The Department of Commerce is initiating a “march-in” process under the Bayh-Dole Act, a federal patent policy allowing recipients of federal funds to retain patent rights over their inventions made with federal funding.

The Act’s “march-in” rights, however, give the federal government the authority to grant licenses of such patents to third parties under certain conditions where federally funded inventions are not being adequately developed or utilized for the public good.

In the letter, Lutnick said that Harvard has “failed to live up to its obligations to the American taxpayer and is in breach of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements tied to Harvard’s federally funded research programs and intellectual property arising therefrom, including patents.”

As a result, the Department of Commerce is initiating a comprehensive review of the institution’s non-compliance, and will initiate the Bayh-Dole Act “march-in” process through which Harvard’s federally-funded patents could be taken over by the government.

Lutnick said that the federal government intends to license Harvard’s patents to third parties.

Keep reading

Russia just let the world know they will NOT protect Big Pharma’s predatory patents

At the 2024 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), a Russian Member of Parliament (MP) sparked international debate by prioritizing the protection of Russian lives over the enforcement of intellectual property rights for Western pharmaceutical giants. During a panel discussion on drug security within BRICS nations, MP Aleksandr Petrov emphasized Russia’s commitment to safeguarding the health and well-being of its citizens and allies, even if it means challenging predatory patent laws and erecting a national drug manufacturing apparatus.

Russia takes hard stance against Western pharmaceutical companies

Petrov’s stance resonated with many, underscoring the significance of national health priorities and sound economic policies over crony corporate interests that are bankrupting medical systems in the West. Petrov cautioned Western pharmaceutical companies against overly relying on patent laws, stating, “When it comes to the lives and health of our citizens and those of our allies, we will break it.”

Petrov’s position isn’t endorsing intellectual piracy but instead advocating for legal mechanisms to ensure access to vital medications, particularly in the face of rising prices for essential drugs and while facing a barrage of economic sanctions that threaten equitable access to lifesaving drugs for the Russian people.

A focal point of the discussion was the case of Ozempic, a crucial anti-diabetic medication manufactured by Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk. Following disruptions in the drug’s supply due to Western sanctions, Russia responded by issuing emergency licenses to produce generic versions right in Russia. Petrov commended the rapid response of Russian pharmaceutical firms, highlighting their ability to mitigate shortages and uphold national drug security.

Keep reading

Is it Possible to Patent Genetically-Modified Humans?

“When we’re modifying the genome of an organism we can put our signature, our name, into the genome.” – “What is God? God creates. Well, we can create now.” – “We deserve to be credited for our work. We have lobbyists in politics and the courts to make sure the patenting and owning of parts of the human genome continues.”

Not word for word but, these are recollections by Dr. Carrie Madej of remarks made by Dr. Craig Venter of the Human Genome Project during a speech in 2014.  Dr. Venter also talked about how vaccines could be useful to modify people’s genomes.  Dr. Madej discussed this during an interview, watch HERE (starting at 45 mins).

In 2010, on creating the world’s first synthetic life form Dr. Venter said, “the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.” Dr. Venter’s technology paved the way for designer organisms to be built rather than be allowed to naturally evolve, and he owns the patent.

Keep reading